Neanderthals had sex with humans, says DNA

It not only makes sense but now it can be proven with science. Evolution might be true to an extent, but interbreeding did happen.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

What do you guys think? And please forgive me if there is already a thread on this new find. Please redirect me and this one can be closed.

reply to post by Stari


I think our creators used the DNA of neanderthals and the DNA of themselves to create us in their likeness and image, but also to have a part of us be from this earth.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

reply to post by Stari

I think our creators used the DNA of neanderthals and the DNA of themselves to create us in their likeness and image, but also to have a part of us be from this earth.

From the article:

Labuda got his first sign of the interbreeding about a decade ago when he discovered a snippet of DNA on the X chromosome found only in non-Africans and whose origin was unknown.

"It's in the Middle East, it's in Europe, it's in Eurasia, it's in America, it's in Australia," study researcher Damian Labuda of the University of Montreal told LiveScience.

From the way I understand the article, it shows that Neanderthal DNA is absent from those in Africa. I don't believe it shows that Non-africans are the result of Neanderthal and "creator" genetic mixing. It shows that Homo Sapiens, which left Africa during the time of Neanderthals, mixed their genes with Neanderthals.

Neanderthal is said to have a larger brain than homo sapien. How much do we know about neanderthal anthropologically speaking? Could the ones we've discovered be the displaced survivors of an advanced civilization that experienced a catastrophic event?

reply to post by tamusan

From the way I understand the article, it shows that Neanderthal DNA is absent from those in Africa. I don't believe it shows that Non-africans are the result of Neanderthal and "creator" genetic mixing. It shows that Homo Sapiens, which left Africa during the time of Neanderthals, mixed their genes with Neanderthals.

Interesting......cool thread, Tamusan.

S&F

If all of this is true, would that mean that Africans and Non-Africans were different species...genetics is confusing

Originally posted by hyperion.martin
If all of this is true, would that mean that Africans and Non-Africans were different species...genetics is confusing

Well, no, not exactly. More like different breeds within the same specie through swapping genes with another hominid.

In my opinion, humans ventured out and mated with hominids around the world (and probably inanimate objects or whatever else they could find, maybe that's why there was idle progress for hundreds of thousands of years) accounting for the various human races.

reply to post by Nyiah


I guess that makes sense, like the difference between a wolf-dog and a wolf.

reply to post by NightGypsy


Thank you NightGypsy, but the member named Stari is the one who started the thread.

Originally posted by hyperion.martin
If all of this is true, would that mean that Africans and Non-Africans were different species...genetics is confusing

The science of genetics is also inaccurate, go ask those that have had their babies taken from them because the DNA did not match but in fact it was their babies.

reply to post by hyperion.martin


They (the researchers), also say that the Neanderthal DNA fragment "is present in 9 percent of humans across the world from Asia to Europe to America — except in Africa, where it does not appear."

So, not every non-African has a Neanderthal ancestor.


They also only studied 6,092 chromosomes from modern Homo sapiens. There is a chance that they missed the people labeled as Africans who exhibit this DNA fragment.

reply to post by zookey


I would believe that has more to do with hosptial mix ups and infidelity than DNA testing being inaccurate.

I don't believe it's just interbreeding it also has to do with everything and anything that we connect with in our daily lives. We are changed in a number of different ways. This is just the first scientific article to my knowledge that adhears to the possibilitly of interbreeding.

Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by zookey

 

I would believe that has more to do with hosptial mix ups and infidelity than DNA testing being inaccurate.

Actually no there has been cases where biological families have been broken up due to DNA not proving they are related lol. It can happen, and more than you think.

DNA testing is not 100% foolproof.

reply to post by zookey


Was it due to human error or is there evidence to suggest that the testing methods themselves are faulted?

reply to post by Stari


That's why I'm interested in this article. As you said it is the first to claim substantial proof that inbreeding did occur.

Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by zookey

 

Was it due to human error or is there evidence to suggest that the testing methods themselves are faulted?

It was their actual DNA that had no markers that would indicate it. And it was confirmed they are a biological family.

It is basically possible that a child could have DNA that would indicate using current tests and knowledge that that child was infact not their child, but it really was their child. The actual knowledge or assumption / markers used in the test while work for the majority of cases, once they hit border cases, are not conclusive so the testers assume based on their knowledge or just following the test that they are not related. But are!

I was astonished when I read about it.

Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by zookey

 

Was it due to human error or is there evidence to suggest that the testing methods themselves are faulted?

It was their actual DNA that had no markers that would indicate it. And it was confirmed they are a biological family.

It is basically possible that a child could have DNA that would indicate using current tests and knowledge that that child was infact not their child, but it really was their child. The actual knowledge or assumption / markers used in the test while work for the majority of cases, once they hit border cases, are not conclusive so the testers assume based on their knowledge or just following the test that they are not related. But are!

I was astonished when I read about it.

Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by hyperion.martin

 

They (the researchers), also say that the Neanderthal DNA fragment "is present in 9 percent of humans across the world from Asia to Europe to America — except in Africa, where it does not appear."

So, not every non-African has a Neanderthal ancestor.


They also only studied 6,092 chromosomes from modern Homo sapiens. There is a chance that they missed the people labeled as Africans who exhibit this DNA fragment.

This is very true and thank you for sharing.

The original study only looked at a handful of people. Only one of them were African, if I remember correctly. My point is these studies aren't very accurate because they attempt to explain an idea that the researcher already has in mind.

How about we get some truly objective studies on DNA and the origins of mankind and different races as opposed to watered down studies citing that one very misleading study from a few years back?